Forum home Road cycling forum The cake stop

Very Poor Fuel Economy_Volvo XC60

RideOnTimeRideOnTime Posts: 4,712
edited February 2015 in The cake stop
Sorry to raise such an issue here - I should register with Petrolheads or the RAC but I can't be bothered.

Just to anyone who might have a bit of car/engine/performance knowledge...

I have a Volvo XC60 - its 4 years old and I have had it 3 months.
My average fuel economy is 36.7 mpg.
This seems very poor.
The figures suggest I should get 47 mpg.
What's wrong?
It is a Diesel 2.0l and has a drivE badge.
I know we have been driving in urban conditions but even so we've had some longer runs.
Anyone got advice?
«13

Posts

  • capt_slogcapt_slog Posts: 3,443
    Is everything else right?

    By that I mean do you have it serviced etc, or at least you've checked all the obvious stuff. And the less obvious..... tyre pressures, wheel nuts are correct, brakes not binding, air con not set to auto/climate control?

    After that, perhaps the injectors. I know very little about these, but do know that they cause trouble like you describe if they are not up to snuff. If you google it you can find a lot about "injector patterns".


    The older I get, the better I was.

  • arran77arran77 Posts: 9,260
    RideOnTime wrote:
    I have a Volvo XC60 - its 4 years old and I have had it 3 months.
    My average fuel economy is 36.7 mpg.
    This seems very poor.
    The figures suggest I should get 47 mpg.
    What's wrong?

    You bought a vehicle that has all of the aerodynamic properties of a house brick :wink:
    "Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity" :lol:

    seanoconn
  • I have a 2010 V70 D5 Auto and get about the same as you. They are fairly heavy and seem to suffer in stop start journeys. On a run our will do mid 40,s
  • team47bteam47b Posts: 6,424
    Have you tried driving in slippers?
    my isetta is a 300cc bike
  • arran77arran77 Posts: 9,260
    team47b wrote:
    Have you tried driving in slippers?

    It's probably best not to drive the thing at all if he want's good fuel economy :wink:
    "Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity" :lol:

    seanoconn
  • RideOnTimeRideOnTime Posts: 4,712
    Some helpful and not so helpful suggestions. Slippers might work - must try that. Yes I accept that the vehicle lacks aero-dynimea but official figures say it should be much better. May be my brakes are stuck on!! Having had a V70 for the previous 7 years I perhaps need to slow down a bit. Thing has got 6 gears though. 6 gears!! I guess I need to be in the right one :o
  • andcpandcp Posts: 645
    edited January 2015
    Not sure which engine you have, but have a look here:
    http://www.fuelly.com/car/volvo/xc60?en ... bmodel_id=
    According to this site, 37 seems OK; make sure you check 'UK' units in the top left.
    "It must be true, it's on the internet" - Winston Churchill
  • To get anywhere near official figures, you have to drive the car in such a stupid way it's not worth it. I doubt many people get within 20% of the official figures.
    Forget about trying to do anything other than crawl away from a junction. Braking? Oh no, you need to give yourself plenty of time to coast to the junction and also make sure that you time it right so that you do not need to stop at said junction, just accelerate slowly onto it. Never get anywhere near the speed limit on a dual carriageway, 56mph should be your maximum.
  • RideOnTimeRideOnTime Posts: 4,712
    edited January 2015
    andcp wrote:
    Not sure which engine you have, but have a look here:
    http://www.fuelly.com/car/volvo/xc60?en ... bmodel_id=
    According to this site, 37 seems OK; make sure you check 'UK' units in the top left.


    That's not so good... It is a 2.0l DrivE. E is for economy or efficiency or something...
    May be is 'E' for being off your head!! :shock:

    Actually 'thinks' its for Environment... I guess.... its a Green 'e'
  • bompingtonbompington Posts: 7,598
    RideOnTime wrote:
    I bought a big, heavy and un-aerodynamic car while believing the official economy figures that everyone knows to be complete fiction
    I think the phrase is "caveat emptor".

    Or, trying not to be too snide about it: the official fuel economy figures are designed to provide a standardised set of figures to compare different cars. As such they simulate driving a standard route, and this means that manufacturers can game the results by tuning their cars optimally for the test. The best you can hope for is that they can all do this equally well, so the figures should still provide a valid comparison - but don't ever expect to get within 20% of them unless you drive spectacularly slowly.

    Just to rub it in though, our old Skoda Octavia 4X4 estate did a genuine average of about 48mpg for the 70K or so miles we did in it.
  • RideOnTimeRideOnTime Posts: 4,712
    bompington wrote:
    RideOnTime wrote:
    I bought a big, heavy and un-aerodynamic car while believing the official economy figures that everyone knows to be complete fiction
    I think the phrase is "caveat emptor".

    Or, trying not to be too snide about it: the official fuel economy figures are designed to provide a standardised set of figures to compare different cars. As such they simulate driving a standard route, and this means that manufacturers can game the results by tuning their cars optimally for the test. The best you can hope for is that they can all do this equally well, so the figures should still provide a valid comparison - but don't ever expect to get within 20% of them unless you drive spectacularly slowly.

    Just to rub it in though, our old Skoda Octavia 4X4 estate did a genuine average of about 48mpg for the 70K or so miles we did in it.

    Yes you only drove it downhill though, I guess,
  • My Volvo C30 has the same problems. I don't feel i'm getting anywhere near the claimed MPG, even when driving extremely economically. It may be partly due to the fact mine is an automatic, so gear control is not quite as good as in a manual.
  • Saying that, though, I don't actually have a gauge which tells me my MPG, this is just based off fuel usage and comparing prices. It's miles ahead of what I had before, so I don't grumble too much.
  • My wife bought a Renault Grand Scenic 7 seat barge last year, I was really surprised because she can consistently get over 45mpg average despite doing a mix of driving. When we went to the Loire valley a couple of weeks after she bought it, we averaged over 50mpg even with the luggage. Only £30/year VED too. Almost as good as my little Citroen C1 kid taxi.
  • jordan_217jordan_217 Posts: 2,580
    I'd be happy at anything within 10% of the manufacturers claims. Those figures are based on stringent lab tests and can't always be replicated in the real world. Manufacturing tolerances can also mean that efficiency and performance can vary from unit to unit. Skoda published a 197 PS output for the 2006 Octavia vRS but some were coming out of the factory with closer to 210ps, I dare say that it worked the other way and some had less power.

    I've watched my cars economy go from close to the claimed 65mpg to struggling to get to 60 mpg but I'm on a variable service plan and I'm close to the 20K 'interval'. I'm hoping that a filter and fluids change will get me back on track.

    You also bought the wrong car to be now 'complaining' about economy ;-)

    One of our sales guys used to make us laugh when he had to fill up his M6 on his way home to Surrey, from Cambridge. A 500ps V10 which was poor on fuel, the mind boggles…..
    “Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.”
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,149
    Manufacturer's claims.
    Real world.

    Different places.
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • mamba80mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    How are you calculating your mpg figures?
    Any on board computer will almost always be wrong - you need to take your car to a Volvo dealer, there could be s/w upgrades for the ecu and filter changes needed but it wont be cheap lol!

    My brother had one of these before changing it out for a Hyundi Santa Fe (which is a lot better on economy) and he reckons they d easily get 45mpg on runs up and down the M5, about 30 -35 around town, he had a the 2l deisel version.
  • ukiboyukiboy Posts: 891
    Forget the official figures- they are fairy tale land. Done on a rolling road under laboratory test conditions so have no bearing on real world driving conditions.
    I'd say the figure you specify isn't very poor fuel economy - that's pretty good for a great big SUV type vehicle.
    My 1.25 Fiesta Zetec gets between 27-35 mpg in real world city driving, long motorway runs result in 42ish mpg a bit more if I drive REALLY gently.
    Outside the rat race and proud of it
  • neal1984neal1984 Posts: 240
    jordan_217 wrote:
    I'd be happy at anything within 10% of the manufacturers claims. Those figures are based on stringent lab tests and can't always be replicated in the real world. Manufacturing tolerances can also mean that efficiency and performance can vary from unit to unit. Skoda published a 197 PS output for the 2006 Octavia vRS but some were coming out of the factory with closer to 210ps, I dare say that it worked the other way and some had less power.

    I've watched my cars economy go from close to the claimed 65mpg to struggling to get to 60 mpg but I'm on a variable service plan and I'm close to the 20K 'interval'. I'm hoping that a filter and fluids change will get me back on track.

    You also bought the wrong car to be now 'complaining' about economy ;-)

    One of our sales guys used to make us laugh when he had to fill up his M6 on his way home to Surrey, from Cambridge. A 500ps V10 which was poor on fuel, the mind boggles…..

    Manufacturers have to use European driving cycle lab tests which are aimed at allowing the consumer to compare different cars as they all follow the same testing procedure. This is not real world driving and it also has many loopholes that the manufacturers can and do exploit in an effort to be competitive (such as removing any aux loads on the engine such as alternator and air con). There are steps being taken to change the tests to make them aligned to real world conditions but we are at least a few years off yet. I had to write a report last year on this very subject but I won't bore you with the details.

    Life is like riding a bicycle: you don't fall off unless you stop pedaling.


    Scott Foil Team Issue HMX Di2
    Boardman Team Carbon LTD
  • jordan_217jordan_217 Posts: 2,580
    neal1984 wrote:
    jordan_217 wrote:
    I'd be happy at anything within 10% of the manufacturers claims. Those figures are based on stringent lab tests and can't always be replicated in the real world. Manufacturing tolerances can also mean that efficiency and performance can vary from unit to unit. Skoda published a 197 PS output for the 2006 Octavia vRS but some were coming out of the factory with closer to 210ps, I dare say that it worked the other way and some had less power.

    I've watched my cars economy go from close to the claimed 65mpg to struggling to get to 60 mpg but I'm on a variable service plan and I'm close to the 20K 'interval'. I'm hoping that a filter and fluids change will get me back on track.

    You also bought the wrong car to be now 'complaining' about economy ;-)

    One of our sales guys used to make us laugh when he had to fill up his M6 on his way home to Surrey, from Cambridge. A 500ps V10 which was poor on fuel, the mind boggles…..

    Manufacturers have to use European driving cycle lab tests which are aimed at allowing the consumer to compare different cars as they all follow the same testing procedure. This is not real world driving and it also has many loopholes that the manufacturers can and do exploit in an effort to be competitive (such as removing any aux loads on the engine such as alternator and air con). There are steps being taken to change the tests to make them aligned to real world conditions but we are at least a few years off yet. I had to write a report last year on this very subject but I won't bore you with the details.

    Please do! Just a summary would be fine :-)
    “Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.”
  • arran77arran77 Posts: 9,260
    jordan_217 wrote:
    You also bought the wrong car to be now 'complaining' about economy ;-)

    :lol:

    Exactly, huge lump of Swedish tank in poor fuel economy shocker, whatever next :wink:
    "Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity" :lol:

    seanoconn
  • RideOnTimeRideOnTime Posts: 4,712
    arran77 wrote:
    jordan_217 wrote:
    You also bought the wrong car to be now 'complaining' about economy ;-)

    :lol:

    Exactly, huge lump of Swedish tank in poor fuel economy shocker, whatever next :wink:



    article-1042408-022B24E300000578-481_468x558.jpg
  • jordan_217jordan_217 Posts: 2,580
    RideOnTime wrote:
    arran77 wrote:
    jordan_217 wrote:
    You also bought the wrong car to be now 'complaining' about economy ;-)

    :lol:

    Exactly, huge lump of Swedish tank in poor fuel economy shocker, whatever next :wink:



    article-1042408-022B24E300000578-481_468x558.jpg

    :shock: That's defo an XC90!
    “Training is like fighting with a gorilla. You don’t stop when you’re tired. You stop when the gorilla is tired.”
  • pblakeneypblakeney Posts: 14,149
    RideOnTime wrote:
    arran77 wrote:
    jordan_217 wrote:
    You also bought the wrong car to be now 'complaining' about economy ;-)

    :lol:

    Exactly, huge lump of Swedish tank in poor fuel economy shocker, whatever next :wink:



    article-1042408-022B24E300000578-481_468x558.jpg
    They are not where I remember them being. :shock:
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • arran77arran77 Posts: 9,260
    RideOnTime wrote:
    arran77 wrote:
    jordan_217 wrote:
    You also bought the wrong car to be now 'complaining' about economy ;-)

    :lol:

    Exactly, huge lump of Swedish tank in poor fuel economy shocker, whatever next :wink:



    article-1042408-022B24E300000578-481_468x558.jpg

    Look at the airbags on that.....the Swedish were always into their safety :lol:
    "Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity" :lol:

    seanoconn
  • Focus 1.6 petrol 41 mpg driving carefully. Previously had diesel engines which regularly ran at 50-53. 37 on a diesel engine is low... .any trouble with the DPF? The engine is managed to keep it hot, so if you don't, it will overshoot fuel in the exhaust to help burn the soot... you notice it because it revs higher when stationary, fuel consumption goes crazy for a few minutes and the exhaust stinks of burnt oil like hell
  • neal1984neal1984 Posts: 240
    Please do! Just a summary would be fine :-)

    I've pasted below the relevant sections for the Euro part of the report minus the appendixes that would help to understand the technical aspects. This was more aimed at emissions not fuel economy but they are closely related. A lot of my information came from here: http://www.delphi.com/manufacturers/aut ... _standards

    Global Emissions:
    One of the key environmental challenges face by the automotive sector is vehicular emissions. The majority of regions around the world have standards for vehicular emissions and testing which further complicates the issue as there is no global standard. This adds vastly to the complexity of the vehicles and engines as well as
    increasing the research and development required to meet differing targets. To give some insight into how complex the situation is please find attached overleaf appendix 1 which shows the differing standards between Japan, European Union (EU), United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), Environmental Protection Agency for the United States and the California Air Resources Board’s Standards (CARB).

    Euro Emissions:
    Euro emissions and ECE emissions standards are very similar. Currently for passenger vehicles and light commercial vehicles EU5 regulations is the standard with Euro 6 targets soon approaching in Sept 2014.
    Euro emission targets currently measure carbon monoxide (CO), Hydrocarbons (HC), non-methane hydrocarbons
    (NMHC), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), HC + NOx and particulate matter (PM). The introduction of Euro 6 targets vs. Euro 5 will see a reduction in vehicle pollutants across all categories (passenger cars, light commer
    cial vehicles, heavy commercial vehicles). Appendix 2 on the following page highlights the complexity within these
    regulations that is based upon vehicle type, vehicle weight, ignition type (spark ignition (SI) or compression ignition (CI)) and various sub stages within the regulations. Appendix 3 follows and shows the compl
    ex timing plan for the introduction of the various phases of these regulations.

    Euro standard testing:
    The standards do not just end with emissions targets though; there are testing methods to be considered also again with increasing complexity through each regulation. Euro testing standards include tailpipe
    emissions after a cold start (-7C), CO emissions test at idle, crankcase emissions, evaporative emissions, durability of anti-pollution devices, on-board diagnostics (OBD) and smoke testing (CI only).
    These emissions are measure both in standard road cycle testing and standard bench cycle testing (SBC). For Euro 5 regulations CI engines are also subject to NOx testing 400 seconds after a -7C cold start (testing sufficient warm up times), operation of exhaust gas recirculation features at low temperature. Whilst these standards help promote standard testing practices across manufactures there are concerns at how they relate to real world
    driving conditions and also how the figures can be manipulated by vehicle modifications allowed within the scope of the testing such as removing load on the engine (alternator for example) and improving the aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicle by sealing vents etc.

    Conclusion for Emissions Standards:
    As discussed this is a very complex issue due to the differing regulations from region to region. This takes a huge amount of research and development (R&D) to ensure that all legislation is adhered to. Each auto make
    r including Ford is legally obliged to meet these targets. If there was a global standard for vehicle emissions auto makers R&D budgets could be greatly reduced or better still they could be combined from
    each region therefore allowing for more stringent global standards and cleaner emissions globally.
    Much the same can be said for engine emission testing each region has its own test standard which does not allow for a direct comparison between test cycles. Again this comes at an expense for the automakers as this
    greatly increases the amount of test cycles than need to be completed to launch a product across more than one
    market. Happily there is a proposal for a global standard of vehicle testing called the Worldwide harmonized Lightduty vehicle Test Procedure (See appendix 8 overleaf). The earliest this is expected to take place in Euro
    pe in 2017 however. This is expected to more representative of real world driving conditions such as having the
    air-conditioning and headlights on for parts of the test.

    Life is like riding a bicycle: you don't fall off unless you stop pedaling.


    Scott Foil Team Issue HMX Di2
    Boardman Team Carbon LTD
  • team47bteam47b Posts: 6,424
    RideOnTime wrote:
    Slippers might work - must try that. :o

    My comment was not meant to mean a light foot would help with the economy it was more a fashion tip :wink:
    my isetta is a 300cc bike
  • bianchimoonbianchimoon Posts: 3,942
    arran77 wrote:
    RideOnTime wrote:
    arran77 wrote:
    jordan_217 wrote:
    You also bought the wrong car to be now 'complaining' about economy ;-)

    :lol:

    Exactly, huge lump of Swedish tank in poor fuel economy shocker, whatever next :wink:



    article-1042408-022B24E300000578-481_468x558.jpg

    Look at the airbags on that.....the Swedish were always into their safety :lol:
    Ulrika 's a fine TV personality, but she has her knockers
    All lies and jest..still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest....
  • mpattsmpatts Posts: 1,002
    In my experience all cars do 'about' 30-35mpg.

    On a long run a diesel will do more, whereas petrol won't stray much from this.

    In other words, I generally ignore fuel economy when it comes to buying a car (this is as I do about 5k a year).
    Insert bike here:
Sign In or Register to comment.